Publication database

Many universities have developed large-scale interdisciplinary research centers to address societal challenges and to attract the attention of private philanthropists and federal agencies. However, prior studies have mostly shown that interdisciplinary centers relate to a narrow band of outcomes such as publishing and grants. Therefore, we shift attention to include outcomes that have been the centers mandate to influence - namely outreach to the media and private industry, as well as broader research endeavors and securing external funding. Using data covering Stanford University between 1993 and 2014, we study if being weakly and strongly affiliated with interdisciplinary centers in one year relates to and increases (1) knowledge production (publications, grants, and inventions), (2) instruction (numbers of students taught, PhDs, and postdocs advised), (3) intellectual prominence (media mentions, awards won and centrality within the larger collaboration network), and (4) the acquisition of various sources of funding in the next year. Our results indicate that interdisciplinary centers select productive faculty and increase their activity on a broad range of outcomes further, and in ways greater than departments and traditional interdisciplinary memberships, such as courtesy and joint appointments.

With permission of Elsevier

We examine how 712 executives from several countries, industries and backgrounds are willing to rely on trust (WTRT) when entering a collaborative venture where both partners are at risk. Presented with a specific partnership opportunity they were asked about the level of safeguards required to enter into an agreement. We test for the impact of contextual and demographic conditions and confirmed differences in WTRT between nationalities, but find that several contextual variables mediate this impact. Different nationalities treat three dimensions of trust (integrity, reliability, and benevolence) differently as they are shown to be time dependent. We conclude that context is as important as demography in determining an executive’s WTRT.

With permission of Elsevier

Organizations crowdsource ideas from individuals. Individuals whose ideas are not selected for implementation often stop to interact with the organization and submit not further ideas. We hypothesize that organizations can motivate newcomers to submit further ideas by providing a so far understudied form of feedback: rejections. We draw on theories of interaction rituals and matching to develop theory how rejections foster a bond between individuals and organizations. To test our theory we examine the crowdsourcing of 70,196 organizations who receive ideas from 962,570 individuals. We make use of difference in how rejections are written to disentangle the mechanisms how rejections affect individuals willingness to continue to interact with the organization. We discuss the implications for research on idea crowdsourcing, social bonding, and creative processes.

This article describes the newly enacted or rewritten regulations for the defense against IT attacks as part of IT security law: first the relevant criminal offenses, then the powers of the police and intelligence services, then of the IT security authorities and Internet providers. At the end, the political statements for the 19th parliamentary term will be compared with the remaining need for action in IT security law. Furthermore, the future of IT security law will be discussed in the context of implementation, ongoing development and consolidation.

Research has examined who gains authority in knowledge production communities, but has neglected the community members granting authority. We ask: when do community members engage in the authority granting process and why do they support or oppose a candidate? We theorize that community members willingness to engage in the authority granting process depends on their task similarity. We depart from earlier literature by arguing that task similarity is a two-edged sword as a source of support and opposition, which we explain is related to strategic considerations of the voter. Using a unique dataset of all Wikipedia elections from 2003 to 2014, we study when community members vote and whether they vote in favor or against candidates standing for election for administrator positions.